[cfe-users] Clang9 UBSan and GMP

[Matthew Fernandez via cfe-users]

> On Oct 31, 2019, at 14:30, Hans Åberg via cfe-users <cfe-users at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On 31 Oct 2019, at 22:07, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 1:51 PM Hans Åberg <haberg-1 at telia.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 31 Oct 2019, at 21:40, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Such that it's not practical for the compiler developers to do all the leg work of investigating 3rd party code bugs to determine if it's a bug in the compiler. It doesn't scale/we wouldn't have any time to work on the compiler & most of the time we'd be finding user bugs, not compiler bugs.
>>> 
>>> The GMP developers feel exactly the same, dropping Clang support. It is mostly a problem for MacOS users that do not have access to GCC.
>> 
>> Yep, that's certainly their call - there's a cost to maintaining compatibility with each compiler/toolchain/platform, etc.
> 
> Yes, it involves hard study of the various CPUs used.
> 
>> If you have a personal interest in GMP on MacOS, then perhaps the cost falls to you, if you're willing to pay it, to investigate this sort of thing & help support this particular library+compiler combination, if it's worth your time to do so.
> 
> Both GCC and Clang can be conveniently installed using MacPorts. The Apple inhouse clang is weird.

I haven’t followed the rest of this thread closely, but do you have a reference for the GMP developers abandoning Clang on macOS? Or were you referring to their comment about Clang on the page I linked? Personally I regularly use GMP with a macOS-supplied Clang without any issues. Admittedly not for any extreme numerical computation, but my experience is that GMP works fine in this scenario.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-users/attachments/20191101/323e4d47/attachment.html>